Tim Cook wrote: >> > First of all; an ontology instance cannot (should not) exist outside of >> > an archetype instance. Therefore it is obvious which archetype it >> > belongs with. >> >> I don't understand how it would be obvious, Tim. You would have to search >> through all of the archetypes somehow in order to find the one to which >> the >> ontology belongs. > > Ahhhh, but I think that this has more to do with your implementation > decisions than with the object model. ???? > > How could your ontology instance lose it's reference to its parent > archetype instance while in memory? My guess is that it doesn't. I'll > venture that it happens based on how you choose to persist your objects. > Correct?
No, I didn't say anything about an ontology instance losing its reference. We're talking about whether the in-memory ontology instance should refer to its archetype via (a) a direct object reference of type ARCHETYPE, or (b) an indirect reference of type ARCHETYPE_ID. My point was that with (a) you have the owning archetype immediately, whereas with (b) you would have to do some kind of look-up or search. (Note that I don't know whether this actually was the motivation for choosing ARCHETYPE rather than ARCHETYPE_ID.) - Peter
